US 9414141

I'll verify this patent against live sources before summarizing.

Let me check specifically for any litigation or CAFC 2026 docket activity.

US 9,414,141 B2 — Verified Summary

Search note / disambiguation: A search for "9414141" surfaces U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (Ancora Technologies, IPR2021-01406, Roku/Vizio v. Ancora). That is a different patent number and is not the subject here. Likewise, the string "9414141" appears in unrelated documents (a 1994 PCT/US case number, an ICASSP DOI, a wheat gene table). All statements below pertain only to US 9,414,141 B2.

Bibliographic Data

Abstract (verbatim)

"A portable electronic device that provides compact configurations for audio elements are disclosed. The audio elements can be drivers (e.g., speakers) or receivers (e.g., microphones). According to one aspect, mesh structures, such as mesh barriers, are formed to facilitate improved acoustic sealing in a space efficient manner. In one embodiment, a mesh barrier for an audio port can be reliably acoustically sealed (or coupled) with an audio chamber and/or outer device housing in a space efficient manner. A mesh barrier can serve to block undesired foreign substances from entry or further entry into an audio port and/or serve as a cosmetic barrier which obscures vision into an audio port. In one embodiment, a portion of a mesh structure can be provided with a substantially planar surface that facilitates improved acoustic sealing."

Independent Claims — Plain Language

Claim 1 (mesh structure). A woven mesh (interwoven overlapping elements) sits above the audio element of a portable electronic device at the acoustic-port opening. It has a central portion and an outer peripheral portion. The outer peripheral portion is (a) processed so a material is integrated into the interstices of the weave, making the periphery less porous than the center, and (b) configured to receive an adhesive after that processing, with the adhesive providing the acoustic seal of the mesh within the port.

Claim 12 (mesh structure). Same core concept as Claim 1, framed differently: a mesh with a middle portion and an outer portion having material interstitially integrated into it. The outer portion is less porous than the middle portion and is configured to receive an adhesive layer to acoustically seal the mesh in the port after the material is integrated. (Notably, Claim 12 does not require the "positioned above an audio element" limitation of Claim 1.)

Claim 19 (mesh structure). A woven mesh with an inner region of a first thickness and a peripheral region of a second, lesser thickness. The peripheral region has material embedded within the woven mesh, is less porous than the inner region, and the mesh is configured to be positioned relative to an acoustic port in a portable device housing. This is the claim that captures the compression/planarization embodiment (FIGS. 4 and 6).

Dependent claim groups: Claims 2–11 depend from Claim 1 (frame formation; sealing to the housing; more planar surface; debris barrier; and the material being adhesive, light-cured, ink, electroformed metal, thermoplastic, or achieved by compression). Claims 13–18 depend from Claim 12 (frame; seal to housing; more planar; silicone material; light-cured adhesive; hydrophobic). Claims 20–21 depend from Claim 19 (recess on top and/or bottom of the peripheral region; compression of the peripheral region).

Technical Substance (from the specification)

The invention addresses a specific manufacturability problem: interwoven wire mesh (typically stainless steel) is difficult to acoustically seal against a housing or acoustic chamber because of its uneven, porous weave. The patent solves this by modifying only the outer periphery of a mesh sheet while leaving the central region open for sound. Disclosed techniques:

• Electroforming (e.g., nickel deposition) into the outer region
• Thermoplastic film — patterned, applied over the sheet, then heat- and pressure-bonded into the mesh
• Emulsion application with selective curing and rinse-away of uncured material
• Printing (inkjet, pad, or silkscreen) with silicone-based ink/paint, optionally multi-pass
• Compression to flatten and densify the periphery
• Adhesive/silicone buildup, embedment, or painting

The processed sheet is then singulated into individual mesh structures, enabling batch fabrication. The modified periphery becomes flatter (more planar) and less porous, which is stated to reduce required adhesive thickness — the specification gives an example of reducing a ~1 mm adhesive layer to about 0.4 mm. FIGS. 5–6 show the mesh sandwiched between an acoustic chamber ("audio boot") and the inner housing surface with adhesive layers 516/518 and 616/618; FIG. 6 additionally covers a thickness-reduced, compressed outer portion. The patent also discloses stacked multiple meshes (e.g., a stainless steel cosmetic mesh plus a polymer hydrophobic particle-barrier mesh). Incorporated by reference: U.S. App. Nos. 12/794,561, 12/698,957, 61/325,803, and 13/163,308.

Prosecution Observation

The granted Claim 1 differs materially from the published application's Claim 1 (US 2013/0170109 A1). The published version was broad — merely "an outer peripheral portion has a more reliable sealing surface." The granted version adds the limitations that the mesh is positioned above an audio element, that the material is integrated interstitially with the weave thereby reducing porosity, and that the periphery is configured to receive an adhesive after processing. Similarly, the published application's apparatus claim (portable electronic device with an acoustic chamber and peripheral frame) and its method claim (obtain sheet / process / singulate) do not appear among the 21 granted claims — the granted set is entirely directed to mesh structures. This suggests the claims were narrowed during prosecution to overcome prior art, though I have not reviewed the file wrapper to identify the specific rejection.

Family / Citations

• Cited by (later Apple work): US 2016/0073183 A1 (Molded acoustic mesh for electronic devices), US 10,209,123 B2, US 10,425,738 B2, among others.
• Notable prior art cited: US 5,828,012 (W.L. Gore, protective acoustic cover), US 2005/0077102 A1 (Banter, protective acoustic cover assembly), US 2011/0255726 A1 and US 2012/0177237 A1 (Apple audio port configurations).

Litigation / CAFC 2026 Check — Uncertainty Flagged

I searched for Federal Circuit 2026 activity involving this patent and found no CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or IPR naming US 9,414,141. My search did surface several Apple-related Federal Circuit decisions in 2026, but all involved different patents, including U.S. 9,191,083; 9,319,075; 9,019,946; 8,842,653 (Smart Mobile Technologies); and U.S. 10,912,502 / 10,945,648 (Masimo, Apple Inc. v. ITC, No. 2024-1285, decided Mar. 19, 2026). None concerns the '141 patent.

Caveats on uncertainty:

1. My verification relied on the Google Patents full text (authoritative for the document itself) plus corroborating copies at Justia, uspto.report, and Patents-review.com. I did not query the USPTO PatentCenter/PATENTSCOPE API directly, so I cannot independently confirm the current maintenance-fee and assignment status beyond the "Active" label reproduced in the source.
2. The absence of a CAFC 2026 docket entry reflects a negative search result across general web sources; I cannot rule out a very recent or unpubliished filing.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9414141 specifically.

Let me search more specifically, being careful to isolate the exact patent number 9,414,141 from similar numbers.

Let me try additional targeted searches, including IPR proceedings and the Unified Patents litigation portal.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 9,414,141

Patent identified (literal): U.S. Patent No. 9,414,141 B2, "Mesh structure providing enhanced acoustic coupling," filed Jan. 4, 2012, issued Aug. 9, 2016, App. No. 13/343,645, assignee [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), inventors Sawyer I. Cohen, Jared M. Kole, Michael B. Wittenberg, Nicholas Merz. Publication US20130170109A1. Anticipated expiration 2032-01-04; status Active.

Finding: No known litigation located

Based on my searches of patent-litigation sources (PACER/CourtListener-derived dockets via Justia, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents-style litigation reporting, and general web/newswire coverage), I found no district court litigation, ITC § 337 investigation, or PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM) in which U.S. Patent No. 9,414,141 was asserted or challenged. Accordingly, I cannot provide plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome — because I found no case to report.

This is consistent with what one would expect: the '141 patent is owned by Apple Inc., and its subject matter (a laser/electroformed-sealed woven mesh barrier for an audio port) relates to Apple's own acoustic hardware. Apple's published enforcement campaigns have involved other patents (design patents, user-interface and health-monitoring patents), not this one.

What the searches did return (and why it is NOT this patent)

To avoid a false positive, I flag these lookalike hits that I screened out:

Caveats and confidence

• High confidence that there is no well-publicized litigation over 9,414,141. Moderate-to-high confidence there is no litigation at all, including sealed or low-profile suits.
• My ability to confirm a negative is limited by the tools available to me here: I do not have direct, real-time, complete access to PACER or to a paid litigation database (e.g., Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Navigator, Lex Machina). A docket-level "Patent Litigation" tab on the patent's Google Patents/Espacenet page (which typically logs assertions) showed no listed litigation.
• The patent is only ~10 years from filing and belongs to a large vertically integrated operating company that generally does not assert its portfolio offensively, which further supports the null result.

Recommended verification steps

If you need a certified negative for a legal opinion or due-diligence memo, I recommend confirming against these primary sources:

1. Unified Patents litigation portal / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina — search the exact patent number 9,414,141.
2. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Patent Public Search "Litigation" / assignment records for App. No. 13/343,645.
3. PACER full-text and docket search for 9,414,141 and for the title "Mesh structure providing enhanced acoustic coupling."
4. USITC EDIS (§ 337 complaints) for the patent number.

If any of those return a case, provide the case identifier and I will analyze the parties, jurisdiction, dates, and status.

Bottom line: Per the sources searched, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,414,141. I state this as a finding of "none located," not as a certified assertion that no such case exists.

I'll verify the PTAB docket against live sources before reporting.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 9,414,141: 0. Per the canonical structured feed in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest), and confirmed by my own independent web screening (searches run 2026-09-23), there is no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent — no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, no appeal, nothing pending. There is therefore no breakdown by status to give: the patent presents as entirely untested at the PTAB. The defensive bottom line for a defendant is the inverse of "hardened": all 21 claims (independent claims 1, 12, and 19 plus dependents 2–11, 13–18, and 20–21) are UNTESTED — none canceled, none sustained, no estoppel generated, and no Board claim construction or prior-art record to borrow. Whoever moves first against this patent writes the record.

Caveat on the negative: the ODP ingest is the authoritative source here and it returned nothing; my corroborating searches are secondary. A very recent petition (< a few weeks old) might not yet be indexed. Treat this as "none located on file," not as a certified negative.

No proceedings to describe — false positives screened out

Because I found zero proceedings, I cannot populate the per-proceeding template (petitioner, panel, grounds, FWD, appeal). Fabricating even a placeholder proceeding number would be exactly the failure mode your constraints prohibit. What I can do usefully is document the lookalikes I screened out, because a defendant's own prior-art search will hit them and mislead them:

I also found no evidence of a defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain for this patent. The "Unified Patents / Apple RPI" discussion I encountered (Togail, IPR2023-00338) concerns the '141 patent of Lionra, not this one.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim is live and unadjudicated. Claims 1–11 (Claim 1 family), claims 12–18 (Claim 12 family), and claims 19–21 (Claim 19 family) have never been construed by the Board, never subjected to an institution-stage merits test, and never canceled. The only narrowing on the record is the prosecution-history narrowing flagged in the earlier section of this analysis: the granted Claim 1 is materially narrower than published Claim 1 of US 2013/0170109 A1 — the granted version adds (i) "positioned above an audio element," (ii) material "integrated interstitially with the weave configuration thereby reducing the porosity," and (iii) "configured to receive an adhesive after being processed." The published application's apparatus claim (portable device with acoustic chamber + peripheral frame) and its method claim (obtain sheet / process / singulate) did not issue. That matters defensively in two opposite directions: the narrowed issued claims are harder to invalidate on the porous-outer-region art, but the un-issued method and device claims, plus the narrowing itself, are fertile ground for a § 112 written-description / enablement attack and for arguing prosecution disclaimer that narrows the claim scope in your favor at claim construction.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR has ever been filed, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is empty. No petitioner, and no privy of any petitioner, is barred from raising any ground in a district court or ITC action. Conversely, and this is the sharp edge for a defendant: because nothing has been tested, all prior-art grounds remain available to you — but they also remain available to everyone else, and the first petitioner gets the cleanest shot at the Board. Note the IPR/§315(b) clock: if you have been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '141 patent, you have one year from service to petition (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)); if you are a manufacturer whose customers were sued, check whether privity already started that clock.

Pattern signals. No serial-petition problem exists (there is no first petition), so General Plastic is not a hurdle for an initial filer. No patent-owner appeal activity because there is nothing to appeal. The relevant pattern is instead structural: this is an operating-company patent (Apple Inc., App. No. 13/343,645, priority 2012-01-04, anticipated expiration 2032-01-04) covering internal acoustic-hardware manufacturing, cited-by later Apple filings including US 2016/0073183 A1 ("Molded acoustic mesh for electronic devices") and US 10,154,327 B2. Apple generally does not assert this class of patents offensively, which is consistent with the absence of both litigation (per the earlier section) and PTAB activity. The realistic IPR trigger for this patent would be a third party manufacturing mesh/audio-port components for Apple-like devices — e.g., a supplier facing a supply-chain or ITC action.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and considering validity: there is no FWD to lean on and no canceled claim to point at — do not represent otherwise to a client or in a brief. Your invalidity case must be built from scratch. The cited prior art already of-record at the USPTO (US 5,828,012 to W.L. Gore, "Protective cover assembly having enhanced acoustical characteristics"; US 2005/0077102 A1 to Banter; US 2011/0255726 A1 and US 2012/0177237 A1 to Apple) is the natural starting set for a § 103 combination against Claims 1 and 12, since those claims turn on "interstitially integrated material reducing porosity" plus "configured to receive an adhesive" — a mechanical-sealing concept with a deep art base in Gore-type acoustic covers.
• Attack surface worth developing pre-petition: the § 112 angle created by the prosecution narrowing described above. The published application claimed a "more reliable sealing surface"; the granted claims require interstitial integration and post-processing adhesive reception. Any gap between those limitations and the as-filed disclosure (and the absence of the method/device claims that were dropped) is worth a written-description and enablement analysis before you commit to an IPR — a § 112 challenge is available in PGR only within 9 months of grant (long expired, 2017-05-09) and is not available in IPR, so lead with § 102/§ 103 in an IPR and keep § 112 for district court or a DJ action.
• Procedural posture: if you file, deadlines run from the post-institution date — Patent Owner Preliminary Response (3 months), institution decision (§ 314(b), 6 months from petition), then a statutory one-year trial deadline from institution to FWD, with oral hearing typically ~2–3 months before the FWD due date. Track the proceeding on USPTO PTAB E2E / Patent Public Search (https://ppubs.uspto.gov and https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and any resulting appeal on CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com) and the Federal Circuit docket.
• Verify the negative for yourself if you need it in a memo: run the exact string 9,414,141 (and separately 13/343,645) through PTAB E2E / Patent Public Search "Litigation & PTAB" views and the USPTO ODP API. If either returns a proceeding, hand me the number and I will analyze grounds, panel, and disposition.

Plain answer to the assignment: there is no PTAB story on US 9,414,141. No petition has ever been filed. Nobody has canceled a claim, nobody has sustained one, no estoppel exists, and there is no appeal. The patent is an untested Apple operating asset — and the absence of even a single IPR, despite a decade on the register, is itself the signal: it has not been asserted against anyone who felt the need to file one.

I'll verify the assignment record against live sources before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and any subsequent transfers.

Let me try to confirm the specific reel/frame and check for any post-issuance transfers or liens.

Ownership / Assignment Reconstruction — US 9,414,141 B2

Verification note: I was able to reach Google Patents' legal-events listing for the '141 patent (which is authoritative for the document and its recorded reassignment entry) plus uspto.report and Justia mirrors of the file. I was not able to return a live hit from the USPTO Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov query page within this research pass (tool limits), so the reel/frame below is carried over from the previously generated section and restated as such. If you need a certified copy, pull it from https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html searching application 13/343,645.

Inventors

Pattern observations. The four named inventors all reside in the greater Cupertino/San Francisco Bay Area, the assignment is a standard Apple "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" of the entire right/title/interest, and there is no co-owner, university, or government-interest statement anywhere on the face of the patent. This is the normal signature of an employee-invention capture, not a joint-development or spin-out situation.

I found no evidence bearing on inventor-departure timing (e.g., all inventors leaving Apple within 12 months of filing). I do not have a personnel/employment data source for these four individuals, so I am not asserting a departure pattern either way. Flag it as unknown, not as a negative.

Original assignee

Apple Inc. — Cupertino, CA (California corporation), also shown as "APPLE INC." on the recorded assignment and on the Google Patents "Current Assignee" field. Per the earlier verification section, the issu

I'll verify the specific citation records for US 9,414,141 before building the prior-art analysis.

Now let me verify the remaining citation records, focusing on the mesh/port and acoustic-sealing references.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,414,141 B2

Target document (verified literally as "9414141"): US 9,414,141 B2, Mesh structure providing enhanced acoustic coupling; App. No. 13/343,645; filed Jan. 4, 2012; granted Aug. 9, 2016; [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.); Cohen, Kole, Wittenberg, Merz. Confirmed against the granted-PDF cover page (patentimages, US009414141B2), uspto.report/patent/grant/9,414,141, and Justia. No results for any other number are used below. The earlier disambiguation (US 6,411,941 / Ancora) still applies — that reference remains excluded.

Governing law — important threshold point. Because App. 13/343,645 was filed Jan. 4, 2012, the pre-AIA §§ 102/103 regime applies (AIA first-inventor-to-file provisions govern applications filed on/after Mar. 16, 2013). There is no provisional or foreign priority claim, so:

• § 102(b) critical date = Jan. 4, 2011 (one year before U.S. filing).
• § 102(a) = publications/patents dated between Jan. 4, 2011 and Jan. 4, 2012.
• § 102(e) = U.S. patents/publications filed before the applicant's invention date (presumptively Jan. 4, 2012) but published later.
• § 102(a)(2) (AIA) is not available; and pre-AIA § 103(c) common-ownership disqualification applies only to 102(e)/(f)/(g) art, not to 102(a)/(b) art — this matters for the three Apple filings cited below.

1. The reference set

The face of the patent lists 24–27 citations (the page shows both "Citations (24)" and "Patent Citations (27)" — a Google Patents artifact; the counts do not reconcile exactly, which is itself worth noting). I group them by usefulness, not by the order printed.

Tier 1 — substantively closest art

Tier 2 — contextual art (housing, port, cover positioning)

Tier 3 — peripherally cited, low relevance

Tier 0 — listed citations that cannot be prior art (flag these explicitly)

2. Anticipation conclusion, claim by claim

No single cited reference discloses every limitation of independent claim 1, 12, or 19. The common gap across the entire cited set is the same one the granted claims were evidently drafted to occupy:

• Claims 1 and 12 require the outer/peripheral portion of the weave itself to be processed so a material is integrated interstitially with the weave, making that portion less porous than the central/middle portion, with the periphery being configured to receive an adhesive after that processing. The cited art instead (a) laminates or bonds a separate layer to a porous layer at the periphery (US 5,828,012), (b) uses a perforated foil rather than a weave (US 6,932,187 / US 2005/0077102), or (c) places a film over a frame (US 2011/0261986). None infills a woven mesh's interstices at the periphery.
• Claim 19 adds a thickness reduction of the peripheral region relative to the inner region in combination with embedded material and reduced porosity. The nearest disclosures of edge encapsulation/compression are US 5,828,012 at cl. 15–16 (molded elastomer encapsulating the edges and outer bonded region) and US 6,258,438 (insert-molded grille); neither teaches the mesh itself being thinned at the periphery.

Therefore: I found no reference among the citations that anticipates any of claims 1–21 under § 102(a), (b), or (e). The realistic invalidity theories are § 103 combinations:

1. US 5,828,012 + US 2005/0077102 A1 — outer bonded region + adhesive washer/ring (Gore '012) combined with electroformed-metal-in-periphery and hydrophobic treatment ('187) → aimed at claims 1–4, 6, 9, 12–14, 18.
2. US 5,828,012 + US 2011/0261986 A1 — outer bonded/sealed region plus a frame around the sound opening → aimed at claims 2–3, 13–14, and reinforcing the "frame" limitation generally.
3. US 5,828,012 cl. 15–16 + US 6,258,438 — molded/encapsulated edge plus insert-molded grille for the compression/thinning idea → the only plausible route to claim 11, 20, 21.
4. US 2009/0245565 A1 + US 2011/0255726 A1 / US 2012/0177237 A1 — metal mesh with adhesive attachment in a compact-device audio port → claims 1, 12, 19 at the level of the preamble/environment (weave, above the audio element, adhesive sealing) — i.e., 102(d)-style environment elements that the claims do not rely on for patentability.

Claims with no supporting art in this citation set: claim 7 (light-cured material), claim 8 (ink printing), claim 10 (thermoplastic material). The '141 specification describes photo-curing, thermoplastic film, and printing techniques, but the cited references do not appear to disclose them applied to a woven acoustic mesh periphery — these are the strongest differentiators and would make any § 103 attack harder.

3. Caveats and confidence

• Verified in this session: US 5,828,012 (full text, claims, examples, assignee, dates); US 6,932,187 / US 2005/0077102 A1 (full text, claims, dates); US 2009/0245565 A1 / US 8,055,003 B2 (abstract, summary, dates); US 2011/0261986 A1 / US 8,942,401 (claims/summary, WO 2009/020046 priority and international filing dates); US 2012/0257776 A1 / US 9,124,977 B2 (abstract, PCT filing date Dec. 24, 2009); US 2013/0170109 A1 (claims); US 2016/0073183 A1 (title/dates).
• Not independently verified in this session (description taken from the face-of-patent listing / title+classification only): US 2012/0177237 A1, US 8,631,558 B2, US 2011/0255726 A1, US 2008/0149417 A1, US 6,321,070, US 6,258,438, DE 1 147 983 B, US RE 28,420 E, DE 20 2004 011 510 U1, EP 1 686 834 A1, US 7,358,633, US 2010/0231060, US 2006/0094378, US 2006/0153417, US 2011/0108082, US 2013/0271902. I hit the tool-call limit before verifying these; I am stating that plainly rather than inferring content.
• Identifier literalism. One search result (the JP 5513057 B2 family text) refers to "U.S. Pat. No. 5,828,812" while describing the Gore cover assembly. Read literally, 5,828,812 is a different number; the described subject matter and family linkage indicate the JP document's citation is a typographical error for 5,828,012. I am flagging this rather than silently correcting it. Separately, the face-of-patent assignee field for US RE 28,420 E is blank/garbled on the Google copy — do not rely on it.
• Date discrepancy observed. The full-text source was fetched 2026-09-23 (per the document header) while the task header states April 26, 2026. This does not affect the prior-art analysis, whose critical dates (1959–2016) are unaffected, but note it for provenance.
• No file wrapper reviewed. The specific examiner rejection that drove the claim-1 narrowing is still unconfirmed — all I can say is that the narrowing limitations correlate precisely with the gaps in the Tier 1 art (US 5,828,012 and US 6,932,187), which is consistent with (but not proof of) those references having been the basis for a § 102/§ 103 rejection.
• Litigation: consistent with the earlier Litigation summary, I found no assertion or PTAB challenge of 9,414,141, so there is no litigation-driven prior-art-of-record beyond the citations analyzed above.

I'll ground the prior-art analysis in the actual references cited on the patent's face before building the § 103 combinations.

Let me verify the remaining key references I plan to rely on.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,414,141 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent analyzed: US 9,414,141 B2, "Mesh structure providing enhanced acoustic coupling," App. No. 13/343,645, filed Jan. 4, 2012, issued Aug. 9, 2016, [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) Priority date Jan. 4, 2012 (no earlier priority claim). Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9414141/en

Prior art basis: The references cited on the patent's own face ("Citations (24)" / "Patent Citations (27)") — i.e., the record the examiner actually considered. No reference outside that cited set is relied upon below except where expressly flagged as unverified.

0. Framework and a refinement to the prior sections

Governing law. Because App. No. 13/343,645 was filed before March 16, 2013 and claims no earlier priority, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 govern patentability. Obviousness is assessed under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and the enumerated rationales of MPEP § 2143. That matters here for two reasons developed below: (i) pre-AIA § 103(c) can disqualify certain commonly owned § 102(e) art, and (ii) some cited items have § 102(e)-only dates.

Refinement to the earlier "Patent summary" section (not a contradiction). That section described Claim 19 as "the claim that captures the compression/planarization embodiment (FIGS. 4 and 6)." That is directionally right but imprecise in a way that matters for invalidity: Claim 19 itself recites no compression. It requires only that the peripheral region have a lesser thickness than the inner region and material embedded within the woven mesh. Compression appears only in dependent Claim 21 (and recesses in Claim 20). Claim 19 is therefore broader than the "compression" characterization and is exposed to a wider set of references, particularly US 6,258,438, which teaches a compressed, reduced-thickness peripheral area as a structural feature.

Level of ordinary skill. A person having ordinary skill would be a mechanical/acoustics design engineer with ~2–4 years' experience in transducer packaging for portable consumer electronics, familiar with woven and microporous acoustic barriers, pressure-sensitive adhesives, insert molding, and heat-pressing/consolidation of mesh. Every reference discussed below is analogous art — all are audio-transducer aperture covers, baffles, or grilles.

1. The specification's own admissions establish the problem and much of the solution

The '141 Background (Description, "2. Description of the Related Art") expressly admits:

• audio ports in portable devices "typically have a barrier, such as a mesh barrier, so that undesired foreign substances can be blocked" — the barrier itself is admitted prior art;
• "a mesh barrier, is typically an interwoven structure that present difficulties in sealing such against an outer housing or audio port components" — the problem to be solved is admitted; and
• the goal is to "reliably seal to mesh barriers in a space efficient manner (e.g., with minimum thickness)" — the design objective is admitted.

The Summary/Detailed Description then identifies the solution as "a portion of a mesh structure … provided with a substantially planar surface that facilitates improved acoustic sealing," implemented by five enumerated techniques: electroforming (nickel), patterned thermoplastic film heat/pressure-bonded into the outer region (FIG. 7), emulsion with selective cure and rinse (FIG. 8), printing with silicone ink/paint (FIG. 9), and compression (FIG. 10). Under KSR, an invention that selects one of a small, identified, predictable set of known processing techniques to solve an expressly recognized problem — with a predictable result — is a textbook case for obviousness. 550 U.S. at 421 ("if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious").

2. The four references that carry the analysis

3. Element-by-element mapping to the independent claims

3.1 Claim 1 (mesh structure; processed periphery with interstitial material, then adhesive)

3.2 Claim 12 (middle portion + outer portion with interstitial material, less porous, adhesive-ready)

Claim 12 is broader than Claim 1 — it omits both "positioned above an audio element" and any weave recitation and any positional requirement. US 8,631,558 alone discloses every recited element: a mesh structure for an acoustic port opening of a device; a middle portion (anti-dust portion); an outer portion (adhering portion) that is less porous ("finer holes") than the middle; and configured to receive an adhesive layer (double-sided tape) that secures it to the housing surrounding the speaker hole. The only arguable gap is whether heat-pressing "integrates a material" interstitially versus merely consolidating the mesh's own fibers — and that gap closes immediately with '102 (coating/adhesive printed into and through the perforations) or '012 (adhesive taken up in the porous outer region). See § 4 below.

3.3 Claim 19 (woven mesh; peripheral region of lesser thickness; material embedded; less porous)

US 6,258,438 is the primary reference. It discloses a wire mesh screen compressed into a compressed peripheral area of reduced thickness (cl. 1, 5) where the screen's thickness is "substantially the same as said reduced thickness" (cl. 6) and the screen is "pressed into said panel material" (cl. 7) — i.e., material of the panel is embedded into/around the woven screen while the screen's periphery is thinner and compressed toward impermeability. '558 supplies the express "less porous than" relationship ("finer holes" at the periphery vs. "coarser mesh" at the center). '102/'012 supply the transducer/housing context and the embedded material. Claim 20 (recess on top and/or bottom of the peripheral region) follows directly from '438's compressed-into-material geometry and from the '141's own FIG. 4 recesses 408/410; Claim 21 (peripheral region compressed) is literally '438 and '558.

4. The specific § 103 combinations, with articulated motivations

Combination A (primary): US 8,631,558 in view of US 2005/0077102 A1 → Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–21

What each reference supplies. '558 supplies the two-zone mesh-with-modified-periphery architecture, the express porosity differential ("finer holes" outer / "coarser mesh" inner), the express reason for it (greater surface area → stronger adhesive bond), the adhesive-attached-to-housing assembly, the heat-press processing, and the speaker-facing geometry. '102 supplies (i) an added material integrated into the interstices of a perforated metal mesh (coating treatment, printed adhesive, insert-molded thermoplastic), (ii) nickel electroforming (Claim 9), (iii) patterned printing of adhesive precisely into a ring-shaped outer region (Claim 8-type process and the "configured to receive adhesive" limitation), (iv) hydrophobic/oleophobic treatment (Claim 18), (v) the sandwich/captive construction with an inner unbonded region (Claims 2–3), and (vi) a stacked second perforated layer (the '141's multi-mesh disclosure).

Motivations (MPEP § 2143(I)):

1. Same field, same problem, same solution. Both references address acoustic-transducer apertures in portable electronic device housings and both modify a mesh/foil periphery to improve bonding/sealing without impairing sound transmission. '558 states the porosity/adhesion trade-off explicitly; '102 states the low-acoustic-impedance/high-contamination-resistance trade-off explicitly. A POSITA reading '558 to seal a phone speaker hole would naturally consult Gore's cover art for materials and adhesive systems.
2. Express teaching, not hindsight. '558 itself teaches the exact causal link the '141 claims: a finer (less porous) periphery gives a stronger bond, while a coarser center preserves sound. There is no need to assert a hidden motivation; the reference supplies it. This is the strongest single fact against Claims 1 and 12.
3. Predictable result. Both references report the same outcome the '141 reports: peripheral modification improves seal/adhesion with no claimed acoustic penalty.
4. Design incentive / market demand. '102's stated needs — the cover should be "sufficiently rigid to facilitate the use of quick and accurate installation methods" and be "compatible with insert-molding or heat-staking processes to simplify installation into a housing" — are the same low-profile, high-volume assembly pressures recited in the '141 ('141, [FIG. 5 context], and the 1 mm → 0.4 mm adhesive-thickness discussion). KSR recognizes design incentives and market demand as valid rationales. 550 U.S. at 417–18.
5. Reason to combine the material specifically. '102's nickel electroforming and its printed ring-shaped adhesive both produce exactly the structure Claim 1 recites ("material integrated interstitially … configured to receive an adhesive after being processed"), and Claim 6 of the '141 itself contemplates an adhesive as the integrated material — removing any argument that the adhesive and the interstitial material must be chemically distinct.

Sub-combination A1: '558 alone against Claim 12. Because Claim 12 omits the weave, the transducer-position, and the port-position requirements, '558 alone establishes a prima facie case. The only gap ("material interstitially integrated") is closed by '102. Note also the § 102 overlay: to the extent "material interstitially integrated" is read to cover fiber fusion, '558 approaches anticipation of Claim 12.

Combination B (alternative / cumulative): US 5,828,012 in view of US 2005/0077102 A1 → Claims 1–3, 5–6, 9, 12–16, 18

What each reference supplies. '012 supplies the outer bonded region framing an inner unbonded region, the acoustic gasket whose stated function is acoustic sealing between transducer and housing to prevent leakage, and the adhesive taken up into a porous outer region — i.e., the frame/seal architecture of Claims 2, 3, 13, 14 and the interstitial-material concept. '102 supplies the metal-foil/nickel electroformed mesh, the hydrophobic treatment inside the perforations, and the printed ring-pattern adhesive.

Motivations: (1) '012's own text supplies the motivation — an acoustic gasket or bonded periphery is used "to maintain high sound quality" and "prevent acoustic energy leaking into other regions of the housing"; a POSITA seeking a more reliable acoustic seal at the port periphery would look to '012. (2) Both '012 and '102 are Gore-family references addressing the identical transducer-aperture problem, and Gore's own '102 lists '012 among the prior art it improves upon (¶[0013]) — an express intra-family lineage demonstrating the combination would have been made. (3) Both references are directed to cellular-phone housings with apertures over speakers/microphones, i.e., the same device context.

Why Combination B matters even if A succeeds: it independently supplies the "frame" (Claims 2, 13), "seal between mesh and housing" (Claims 3, 14), "hydrophobic" (Claim 18), and "electroformed metal" (Claim 9) limitations without needing '558.

Combination C: US 6,258,438 in view of US 8,631,558 (and optionally '102) → Claims 19, 20, 21 and 11

What each supplies. '438 supplies the reduced-thickness, compressed peripheral region with the mesh pressed into/embedded in the surrounding material (Claims 19, 20, 21, 11) and the express low-profile/flush objective. '558 supplies the less-porous-periphery limitation and the housing-adhesive context. '102 supplies the transducer/housing and material-embedding context where needed.

Motivations: (1) Both '438 and the '141 confront the same problem — mounting an acoustically transparent mesh grille over a transducer aperture without protruding hardware and without thickness penalty; '438 states it as an object ("smooth planar rear shelf surface … unbroken by any unsightly speaker mounting hardware"). (2) '438's compression step simultaneously reduces thickness and densifies/bonds the mesh periphery — a single known technique achieving both results the '141 claims, so the combination is a "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way." (3) '558 supplies the porosity rationale ('558's finer-mesh periphery) that '438 does not state, making the combination' the benefits explicit.

Combination D: US 5,828,012 in view of US 6,258,438 → Claims 19–21

For completeness: '012 provides the frame/seal architecture and '438 the compressed reduced-thickness periphery. Either C or D supports Claims 19–21; C is preferable because '558's "finer holes" language maps textually onto "less porous."

5. Claim-by-claim conclusion

6. Why the prosecution narrowing does not save the claims

The earlier "Patent summary" section correctly observed that granted Claim 1 added three limitations relative to published Claim 1 of US 2013/0170109 A1 ("positioned above an audio element"; "material integrated interstitially … reducing porosity"; "configured to receive an adhesive after being processed"). Building on that observation: none of the three is a distinguishing limitation against the cited art.

• "Positioned above an audio element" is a positional/contextual limitation satisfied by '558 (cover over a speaker hole with the speaker facing it), by '102's apparatus Claim 11 ("between said acoustic transducer and said housing"), and by '012's phone-mounted covers. It adds no structural novelty to the mesh itself.
• "Material integrated interstitially with the weave configuration" is met by '102's treatment driven into the perforations and its printed/insert-molded material, and by '012's adhesive bonded into the porous outer region.
• "Configured to receive an adhesive after being processed" is met textually by '558: the heat-pressed adhering portion exists precisely to give "a stronger bond with the double-sided tape."

Likewise, the dropped apparatus claim (portable device with acoustic chamber + peripheral frame) and dropped method claim (obtain sheet / process / singulate) are not the reason for allowance; they were simply not pursued. The surviving 21 claims are all mesh-structure claims, and the strongest reference set targets precisely that structure.

7. Where the patent is (relatively) most defensible

I am flagging these honestly; they are the limitations a challenger must address:

1. Claims 7 and 17 — "light cured material" / "light-cured adhesive." Among the references I verified, none expressly discloses a photocurable resin selectively cured in a mesh periphery. The '141's own FIG. 8 emulsion process is the closest. A § 103 case here would rest on the general knowledge that UV/photo-curable adhesives and photoresists are ubiquitous in precision-part fabrication, plus '102's "reaction curing type" adhesives — that is a KSR "common sense"/"known technique" argument, and it is weaker than the textual showings available for every other claim. Confidence: low that this limitation is obvious on the cited record standing alone.
2. Claim 8 — "ink." '102 teaches printing a fluid into a ring pattern (screen printing, gravure printing), but denominates it an adhesive, not an ink. The gap is one of nomenclature; the '141's own FIG. 9 uses "silicone-based ink or paint." Confidence: moderate that this is obvious.
3. Claim 16 — "silicone materials." Supported by '012's silicone-rubber gaskets and '102's adhesive classes, but the mapping is by genus rather than express example.

Everything else in the claim set is, in my assessment, exposed.

8. Secondary considerations (Graham factors 2–4)

I found no evidence in the record of unexpected results, long-felt unmet need, commercial success with nexus, copying, or industry praise. The earlier "Litigation summary" section found no litigation (none located) — meaning there is no adjudicated validity determination, no litigation-driven secondary-consideration record, and no opponent-generated art set (e.g., an IPR petition) that I can draw on. That cuts against the patent on the objective-indicia prong only in the weak sense that there is nothing to weigh against the prima facie case.

Two points worth raising for any rebuttal the patentee might offer:

• The 1 mm → 0.4 mm adhesive reduction (spec, FIGS. 5–6 discussion) is the only quantified advantage. It is a predictable consequence of flattening/densifying the periphery, and its nexus to the claimed interstitial-material limitations (as opposed to the admitted prior-art goal of "minimum thickness") would require proof. Under KSR and WBIP, a result that flows predictably from the known technique is not a strong secondary consideration.
• Unexpected results would have to be shown relative to the closest art. '558 and '012 already achieve a sealed, sound-transmissive mesh over a transducer aperture without acoustic penalty, so the baseline for any alleged surprise is high.

9. Caveats, uncertainty, and what I could not verify

1. § 103(c) common-ownership landmine. Apple's own published applications cited on the '141's face — US 2011/0255726 A1 (Yu et al., filed 2010-06-04, published 2011-10-20; issued as US 8,442,254) and US 2012/0177237 A1 / US 8,804,993 (Shukla et al., filed 2011-06-17) — are the most topically on-point "same-inventor-entity" art (molded acoustic chamber + mesh barrier recessed in the housing opening; mesh/support co-molded; singulation of mesh barriers from a sheet by partial die-cutting, see US 2011/0255726 ¶[0062]). But both published less than one year before the '141's Jan. 4, 2012 filing, so neither is § 102(b) art; their § 102(a) status rests on their publication dates and their § 102(e) status on their U.S. filing dates. To the extent a challenger relies on them as § 102(e) art in a § 103 combination, pre-AIA § 103(c) disqualifies them if they and the '141 were commonly owned at the time the '141 invention was made. Apple is the assignee of all three, and Nicholas Merz appears as an inventor on both the '141 and US 8,804,993 — so the common-ownership disqualification is a live and significant obstacle. I flag this explicitly rather than assuming the Apple-family art is available. The combinations I rely on above (Gore '012, Gore '102, Fu Tai Hua '558, DaimlerChrysler '438) are all third-party and therefore unaffected.
2. '558's status is § 102(e)-only. It published 2012-06-14, after the '141's Jan. 4, 2012 filing, so it is not a printed publication under § 102(a)/(b); its § 102(e) date is its U.S. filing date, 2011-08-30 (In re Hilmer — the 2010-12-14 foreign priority date does not carry over for § 102(e) purposes). It is therefore usable in a § 103 combination but must be pleaded as § 102(e) art, and a challenger must confirm the U.S. filing date in PatentCenter rather than relying on the priority date shown in the Google Patents table.
3. Is a heat-pressed nylon "mesh sheet" a "weave configuration of overlapping elements"? '558 calls it a "mesh sheet"/"mesh object … made of nylon material" without using the word "woven." For Claim 1 (which recites a weave), this is an evidentiary question; for Claim 12 (no weave recitation) it is immaterial. I did not verify the '558 file wrapper or its figures at native resolution.
4. References listed on the patent face that I did NOT independently re-verify (I cite them only as potentially gap-filling art, not as load-bearing): US 2011/0261986 A1 (Murayama — electro-acoustic converters, waterproof covers, air-leakage test methods), US 2009/0245565 A1 (Mittleman — acoustic systems for electronic devices), US 2006/0094378 A1 (Murray — dual-diaphragm speaker assemblies with acoustic passageways in mobile terminals), and US 2013/0271902 A1 (Catalyst Lifestyle — waterproof case; would be § 102(e)-only, priority 2011-08-22). Two of these (Murayama, Mittleman) are plausible sources for the light-cure/coating limitations in Claims 7 and 17 that I could not close.
5. References that are NOT prior art despite appearing on the face. US 8,724,841 B2 (Apple, "Microphone with acoustic mesh") carries a 2012-08-30 priority date — after the '141's filing — so it is not prior art to the '141 and should not be used in any § 103 combination. Similarly, US 2017358633B2 (Samsung, linear vibration motor) and US 2010/0231060 A1 (Samsung, linear vibration motor) are non-analogous art and add nothing. DE 1147983 B (1963) and US RE28420 E (1967/1975) are too remote to be useful primary references, though they are technically § 102(b) art.
6. No IPR/PGR or reexam found. Consistent with the earlier sections' null litigation finding. I have not reviewed the '141 file wrapper, so I cannot confirm which reference(s) the examiner cited in the specific rejection(s) that prompted the Claim 1 narrowing noted in the "Patent summary." If the file wrapper shows the narrowing was over '558 specifically, the obviousness case above becomes a straightforward re-argument plus '102; if it was over Gore art, '558 becomes the new-art linchpin. This is the single most important missing document and I recommend pulling it (USPTO PatentCenter, App. No. 13/343,645).

10. Summary judgment on obviousness

The '141's claims cover: modifying the periphery of a woven acoustic mesh so it becomes denser/flatter and better able to bond and seal, while leaving the center open for sound. As of Jan. 4, 2012 that was a thoroughly worked-out problem in the art, and the record the examiner already had in front of him contains:

• US 8,631,558 — a phone speaker-hole mesh whose heat-pressed periphery is expressly made less porous to produce a stronger adhesive bond, with a coarser sound-transparent center;
• US 2005/0077102 — a nickel-electroformed perforated acoustic foil with a hydrophobic treatment inside the perforations and ring-patterned printed adhesive, disposed between transducer and housing;
• US 5,828,012 — a transducer-aperture cover with an outer bonded ring framing an inner unbonded region, plus an acoustic gasket whose stated purpose is to prevent acoustic leakage; and
• US 6,258,438 — a wire mesh grille compressed into a reduced-thickness peripheral region of a housing panel for a flush, low-profile installation.

Any two of these, and in places a single one, render Claims 1–6, 9–16, and 18–21 obvious, with articulated KSR/MPEP rationales supplied by the references' own express statements rather than by hindsight. Claims 7 and 17 (light-cured material/adhesive) are the only limitations I assess as meaningfully defensible on the cited record alone, and Claim 8 (ink) is marginal.